Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output shape (four risk categories with sub-metrics) and 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval. It does not mention any special behavioral concerns such as score normalization, live vs cached data, or response limitations, but for a simple getter this is adequate though not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tightly written sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then enumerates the returned components without filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 2-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description tells an agent what it returns (four risk vectors and sub-metrics) and the schema provides all input details. It does not explain the return structure in detail, but the high-level description is sufficient for selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%; both address and network have clear explanations (namespace, chain slug format, examples, and how to list valid slugs). Since the schema already documents the parameters completely, the description adds no extra semantic value, matching the baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a vault's risk vectors') and enumerates four concrete components: Asset Composition, Platform and Strategy, Control and Governance, and History scores with sub-metrics. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as explain_risk_score or get_vault, so it doesn't fully earn the top score for sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this is the tool to use when a detailed risk breakdown is needed, and the listed categories give context. However, it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like get_vault or explain_risk_score, nor provides any when-not conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.